Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Hugh Holbrook wrote:
[...]
> The only unclosed discussion regarding this draft surrounds the
> intellectual property rights statement posted to the IETF web site
> back in March (reproduced below).  There was some brief discussion of
> it on the mailing list back in April, but we didn't really close the
> topic, and so I'd like to bring it up again.  So, with this IPR
> statement in mind, let me now ask anyone who has opinions on the topic
> of whether to advance draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt to Proposed Standard
> to speak up.
[...]

I think I've said this before, but as nobody else seems to want to throw 
the first rock, let me do it.. :-)

I don't think we can advance SSM unless we get a guarantee of RF licensing
or get a reasonably sure feeling that SSM implementations would not 
infringe the patent in question.

SSM is targeted as *way* too fundamental piece of technology, and locking
out those who are unable to do non-RF licensing (e.g. different open
source communities) is simply unacceptable.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
ssm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm